Lack of common sense in the soccer forum.

flahavaj

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

What are they to do though, they made the rule to stop people being dicks in the match thread, the fact the thread was locked should have been enough to stop people posting but it wasn't...

If the goal pf the rule is to stop people being dicks then the comon sense approach would be to punish people who continue to be d*cks in other threads. People saying "nice goal" does no harm to the smooth running of the forum whatsoever. Its a needless apllication of the rule.

That said, the fact someone went and reported all those harmless comments is the most ridiculous part of it.

The fact that that is being used to justify the bannings is worse tbh.

DOC09UNAM

flahavaj wrote: »

If the goal pf the rule is to stop people being dicks then the comon sens approach would be to punish people who continue to be d*cks in other threads. People saying "nice goal" does no har to teh smooth running of the forum whatsoever.

To be honest, I do agree with you, they are very silly things to get a banning over, but the rule is there.

The fact that that is being used to justify the bannings is worse tbh.

I just find it petty that someone would report posts such as "good goal", but by reporting them, they put the mods on the spot, and they can either ban people as the rule says, or do nothing.

If they did nothing, we'd still have a feedback thread, just a different person creating it, for the opposite reason.

flahavaj

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

To be honest, I do agree with you, they are very silly things to get a banning over, but the rule is there.

Not al rules need to be applied blindly all the time.

I just find it petty that someone would report posts such as "good goal", but by reporting them, they put the mods on the spot, and they can either ban people as the rule says, or do nothing.

A simple on-thread warning could have sufficed on this occasion surely in the circumstances - the mod appears to have acted (and saves himself a sh*t storm down the line), Pedantic Pete sees that something has been done and the users know that the rule is to be obeyed in future - without a month long ban.

If they did nothing, we'd still have a feedback thread, just a different person creating it, for the opposite reason.

That would mean them revealing themselves as the indiviual petty enough to report all those posts though...........:pac:

Insect Overlord

I've given up on the Soccer forum at this stage, apart from the odd match thread.

Why? Because so many obvious trolls are given total leeway to post total rubbish. They ruin the match threads by winding up one set of supporters or the other. They post inflammatory and inaccurate material in the club mega-threads. They wind good posters up until they snap, and then stand back and survey their damage with pride.

And it's the good posters who suffer. I can't mention specifics (rules is rules) but the patterns I get to see in the Reported Posts forum are very telling. A huge portion of the posts that get brought to attention in there are reported by the trolls, the WUMs and the bullies.

I've decided to give up reading my club's mega-thread. I used to read it a few times a week, catch up with all the news, gossip and educated opinion, but it's too much effort to read it now. The trolls get on-thread warnings. The decent, passionate fans get infractions and bans for telling the trolls where to go.

And then something like this happens, when totally disproportionate bans are handed out to long-term, regular posters. People who enjoy the forum because they get to talk about football/soccer. The posters who enjoy the forum because it's their out-let for trolling are (by and large) still posting there.

Month-long bans for chatting about a goal? Rubbish.
Personal abuse in PI wouldn't get a ban that long.
It's beyond draconian, especially when viewed in the light of pointless on-thread warnings for persistent wind-up merchants.
Cutting two weeks off the bans as some kind of token gesture, as if it's some great favour being done, is not the solution.

/rant

flahavaj

It would be interesting also to hear what punishment was meted out to those who derailed the Match Thread in the first place? Lets not forget they're the ones that really gave the mods a tough day last Sunday and are the ones who can truly be said to have caused the whole situation in the forst place? Any of them currently serving a one month, or even a two or one week ban? Not likely.

Were they dealt with with an on-thread warning and if so could the few of us who carried on a harmless converation on the quality of Darren Fletcher's goal not have been afforded the same level of moderation?

Where's the sense in using a rule dsigned to stop people acting the dick to harshly peanlise people who had no part in said acting the dick, while those who actually were acting the dick receive lesser punishments (if any)?

amiable

I'd also like to know what happened all the posts in this thread that were deleted and if they were infracted?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72050626#post72050626



I won't lie. I reported posts in this thread after my infraction in this thread.

K-9

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

What are they to do though, they made the rule to stop people being dicks in the match thread, the fact the thread was locked should have been enough to stop people posting but it wasn't...

True, I always knew match discussion wasn't allowed during match time in super threads.

That said, the fact someone went and reported all those harmless comments is the most ridiculous part of it.

Indeed, I didn't see any harm in the comments, a stern warning from a mod would have sufficed.

The problem is if a rival team supporter sees another set of fans getting away with something.......................... That's the pettiness of many soccer fans!

Blatter

LoLth wrote: »

@blatter:


problem with this is you now have infractions/bans based on mod opinion alone and that makes each decision more subject to discussion which means a mod has to spend longer justifying their actions and explaining every step of their thought process for each and every decision. If users accepted a mods decision and trusted that the reason they give is the truth and not some vendetta then the mods could use common sense without needing a charter to back them up 100%. Mods are stuck in the middle, make a judgement call and they have to explain it to the user, then they have to explain it to the cmod/admins - thats the price of transparency and DRP etc etc - and unfortunately this is a lot easier and more efficient to do if the mod sometimes has to put aside their own opinion in favour of the charter.

I would say the amount of time that is consumed with posters arguing against infractions/bans that could have so easily been dealt with using a bit of common sense, wouldn't be far off the extra time it would take for the mods to implement the common sense in the first place.

The difference is, the forum would be a much better place if the latter was implemented.


Pretty much nobody agrees with the bans handed out to the several users on Sunday afternoon. It was beyond farcical to use the charter to the letter of the law and hand out such an extreme punishment.

---

On another note, just a query about one of the mods.

I have not seen eZe^ post in months. I don't think I've ever seen a mod note from him and it must also be a few months at this stage when I saw the last infraction handed out by him.

Maybe he does a lot of work behind the scenes, maybe he does some work that I just don't see. Maybe he has informed people that he won't be around much for an extended period? I don't know, I guess that's why I'm asking.

I don't personally have a problem with eZe^ by any means, but if there is a mod that hasn't been actively modding for some time now without explanation, maybe somebody else should be given the role?

DOC09UNAM

K-9 wrote: »

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

What are they to do though, they made the rule to stop people being dicks in the match thread, the fact the thread was locked should have been enough to stop people posting but it wasn't...

True, I always knew match discussion wasn't allowed during match time in super threads.

That said, the fact someone went and reported all those harmless comments is the most ridiculous part of it.

Indeed, I didn't see any harm in the comments, a stern warning from a mod would have sufficed.

The problem is if a rival team supporter sees another set of fans getting away with something.......................... That's the pettiness of many soccer fans!

But the thing is, it was both united and city fans reported, so it wasn't even a rivalry thing, just someone being a bit of a nob.

El Weirdo

amiable wrote: »

I'd also like to know what happened all the posts in this thread that were deleted and if they were infracted?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72050626#post72050626

+1

K-9

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

But the thing is, it was both united and city fans reported, so it wasn't even a rivalry thing, just someone being a bit of a nob.

Ah right, didn't know City fans had posted in the United superthread during that time.

I don't know, I thought mods often ignored reported posts as there are loads of petty reports! Maybe I'm missing something.

DOC09UNAM

K-9 wrote: »

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

But the thing is, it was both united and city fans reported, so it wasn't even a rivalry thing, just someone being a bit of a nob.

Ah right, didn't know City fans had posted in the United superthread during that time.

I don't know, I thought mods often ignored reported posts as there are loads of petty reports! Maybe I'm missing something.

Nah, think it was fluffy, and she posted in the city thread, so someone went actively looking for the posts to report them.

Frisbee

flahavaj wrote: »

As opposed to the ludicrous situation on the DR forum at the moment when you have rigid adherence to the ruls by a mod leading to both a mod and CMod having to discuss and defend a decision several times over in the one place?

Except for the fact that I cut all your bans in half and in future the ban for breaking said rule will be even less.

I'd love for you to tell me how that is rigid adherence.

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Nah, think it was fluffy, and she posted in the city thread, so someone went actively looking for the posts to report them.

Correct. Said person has also posted in this thread giving out about the rule being ridiculous

This is a big proble in the SF atm. Someone gets infracted and then actively goes and combs through threads they don't eve post in and probably would never even have read in order to report more posts. All it is is pure pettieness...

amacachi

Frisbee wrote: »

Correct. Said person has also posted in this thread giving out about the rule being ridiculous

Rules is rules.

amiable

Frisbee wrote: »

Except for the fact that I cut all your bans in half and in future the ban for breaking said rule will be even less.

I'd love for you to tell me how that is rigid adherence.



Correct. Said person has also posted in this thread giving out about the rule being ridiculous

This is a big proble in the SF atm. Someone gets infracted and then actively goes and combs through threads they don't eve post in and probably would never even have read in order to report more posts. All it is is pure pettieness...

I think Flah meant rigid in the enforcement of the rule not the punishment dished out.
For what it's worth, 2 weeks is still way too much imo.


Also, so now you are encouraging people not to report posts?(for the record it wasn't me that reported the posts)

Also you mention pettiness of reporting posts, I seem to remember you threatening to trawl through everyone of my posts to ensure i get enough infractions.

I was actively encouraged after what i deem a ridiculous infraction by a Cat Mod to report all posts i thought were against the charter and to follow them up.

Frisbee

amiable wrote: »

I think Flah meant rigid in the enforcement of the rule not the punishment dished out.
For what it's worth, 2 weeks is still way too much imo.

But yet when we don't enforce another rule rigidly we'll have the same people who are calling out for common sense and leeway within the rules giving out because something they don't like is happening. We have to be even across the board.

amiable wrote: »

Also, so now you are encouraging people not to report posts?(for the record it wasn't me that reported the posts)

I'm not encouraging people not to report posts. Reporting posts is fine. But it's 15 minutes after you've infracted someone and all of a sudden you get 12 reported posts from them in threads they never ever post in is where the pettiness comes from.

amiable wrote: »

Also you mention pettiness of reporting posts, I seem to remember you threatening to trawl through everyone of my posts to ensure i get enough infractions.

EDIT: Think I've just found the PM I reckon you're referring to. Here's what I said:

Frisbee wrote:

Hey,

I've looked through that thread for signs of backseat modding and if I'm going to take a stance on that you'll be receiving another two infractions which will you see get a ban from the forum for a month or so.

So I was trying to save everyone a bit hassle and you a ban. I'll get on it now though.

So here you are in this thread crying for Mods to use a bit of common sense.

Yet just a few months ago when it didn't effect you, you were giving out to me that I wasn't applying the letter of the law to other people.

You'll also notice that I applied common sense there and no-one was infracted.

Either you're all for common sense or you want the rules applied strictly. You can't pick and choose your stance depending on whether or not it is going to effect you.

El Weirdo

Frisbee wrote: »

We have to be even across the board.

If this is the case, tell us what happened to the posters that directly called Neil Warnock a wanker in the thread where amiable was infracted.

Frisbee

From what I can see amiable and one other were infracted as well as someone else infracted for referring to Ferguson as Whiskey Nose.

fwiw I wouldn't have given an infraction for amiables post there tbh.

amiable

Frisbee wrote: »

But yet when we don't enforce another rule rigidly we'll have the same people who are calling out for common sense and leeway within the rules giving out because something they don't like is happening. We have to be even across the board.



I'm not encouraging people not to report posts. Reporting posts is fine. But it's 15 minutes after you've infracted someone and all of a sudden you get 12 reported posts from them in threads they never ever post in is where the pettiness comes from.



EDIT: Think I've just found the PM I reckon you're referring to. Here's what I said:



So here you are in this thread crying for Mods to use a bit of common sense.

Yet just a few months ago when it didn't effect you, you were giving out to me that I wasn't applying the letter of the law to other people.

You'll also notice that I applied common sense there and no-one was infracted.

Either you're all for common sense or you want the rules applied strictly. You can't pick and choose your stance depending on whether or not it is going to effect you.

I actually want common sense but seeing as some mods were not willing to show it IMO i wanted consistency hence my PM to you.
It's actually not that difficult to understand

Also it's not total bollocks like your original post declared before your edit.
I have no reason to lie on here.
I've accepted infractions in the past from you with no fuss.
The Carefree one springs to mind

FWIW i don't think i've personally trawled through threads i don't normally post in looking for posts to report.
I did report posts i normally wouldn't have bothered reporting after my infraction

amiable

Frisbee wrote: »

From what I can see amiable and one other were infracted as well as someone else infracted for referring to Ferguson as Whiskey Nose.

fwiw I wouldn't have given an infraction for amiables post there tbh.

Are you able to tell us why the other posts were just deleted without being infracted?

The Cat Mod told me in no uncertain words the other posts most certainly should be infracted.

I was encouraged by mods from other forums to get an Admin to look into it as i had an excellent case.

Yet it seems one Mod of the soccer forum dug their heels in while several others thought the infraction was OTT

LoLth

amiable wrote: »

The Cat Mod told me in no uncertain words the other posts most certainly should be infracted.

no, the cat mod said the one post you presented as an example would have been infracted by him if it had been reported and explained the importance of reporting posts. he also explained why , though harsh, the infraction was understandable and upheld the infraction in the end.

I was encouraged by mods from other forums to get an Admin to look into it as i had an excellent case.

and that option was open to you but you elected not to avail of it.

Yet it seems one Mod of the soccer forum dug their heels in while several others thought the infraction was OTT

the mod offered a reconsideration by consensus with the other mods of the soccer forum and you chose not to accept that offer, instead you spoke to one other mod , that we know of, and posted his opinion which may have been the only mod opinion that agreed with your view.

bottom line on this one: you had your DRP thread, you discussed this with the cmod. You elected to to ask for an admin to review it. Feedback is not the place to re-open a DRP thread dealt with nearly 6 months ago and agreed by you as resolved.

amiable

LoLth wrote: »

no, the cat mod said the one post you presented as an example would have been infracted by him if it had been reported and explained the importance of reporting posts. he also explained why , though harsh, the infraction was understandable and upheld the infraction in the end.



and that option was open to you but you elected not to avail of it.



the mod offered a reconsideration by consensus with the other mods of the soccer forum and you chose not to accept that offer, instead you spoke to one other mod , that we know of, and posted his opinion which may have been the only mod opinion that agreed with your view.

bottom line on this one: you had your DRP thread, you discussed this with the cmod. You elected to to ask for an admin to review it. Feedback is not the place to re-open a DRP thread dealt with nearly 6 months ago and agreed by you as resolved.

Firstly The Cat Mod told me in PM that the other posts should certainly be infracted.

Secondly another Mod of the Soccer Forum approached the mod who infracted me on my behalf and he said he would not reverse his decision under any circumstances

I didn't drag up this 6 months later i think you'll find it was in the OP

Feedback is Feedback surely
I'm not asking for my infraction to be overturned.
I am stating IMO that my infraction was a complete over reaction.

amiable

Actually just reading back the PM the Cat Mod sent to me he states that the posts were deleted without infraction by a different mod but they should be still infracted but he will infract them himself if necessary

K-9

Frisbee wrote: »

Correct. Said person has also posted in this thread giving out about the rule being ridiculous

This is a big proble in the SF atm. Someone gets infracted and then actively goes and combs through threads they don't eve post in and probably would never even have read in order to report more posts. All it is is pure pettieness...

If you think it's pettiness surely you could just ignore them and issue an on thread warning?

Part of the ongoing problem is petty posters, the same types have caused bother before and it takes ages for bans to happen. I don't see why they should be entertained.

flahavaj

Frisbee wrote: »

Except for the fact that I cut all your bans in half and in future the ban for breaking said rule will be even less.

I'd love for you to tell me how that is rigid adherence.

Punishing the non disruptive post I made in any way is rigid adherence to the rule, how can that even be in doubt? A rule designed to cut out paople acting the prick is being used to penalise posts that were uttery harmless and did nothing to disrupt the forum. You said yourself in our PM exchange you would appeal as I have done if you had been similarly punished as a poster, which implies you must see something in my side of the argument.

As for the ban being halved I appreciate the soundness of the gesture and have said as much in the relevant DRP thread (while maintaining my stance that it still coula hev been dealt wih without resorting to bans).

#15

Frisbee wrote: »

Correct. Said person has also posted in this thread giving out about the rule being ridiculous

Name and shame!

Khannie

Before I get going I just want to say I'm not up to date on what happened this weekend, so this isn't a commentary on that. I'm essentially AFK at the moment because I'm very busy in work and "real life". As such this post is more general and related to my experience of the soccer forum in general because I was the sports cmod for a while.

I'm going to get Amiable's case out of the way because a lot of people have brought it up and I was the cmod that dealt with it (though it wasn't appealed to admin level). It was harsh, yes. I acknowledged as much in the DRP thread:

Khannie wrote: »

Was it harsh? Perhaps a little given that I don't think you were calling the guy a wanker directly. Do I understand why the yellow card was upheld by the mod? Yes. Ultimately upholding your card means people can't go calling someone whiskey nose directly or indirectly and getting away with it.

I discussed it with the mod(s) and they felt that not infracting it would make their lives harder in the future (again, I gave examples in the DRP thread).

It was a crappy scenario to be in. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I didn't want to make the lives of the mods any harder, because the lives of the soccer mods can be very hard indeed and the feedback I got was that overturning it would make their life harder.

amiable wrote: »

Actually just reading back the PM the Cat Mod sent to me he states that the posts were deleted without infraction by a different mod but they should be still infracted but he will infract them himself if necessary

That is correct. I think I dropped the ball on that to be honest. I'll check. If I did, apologies. Yes there were other infractable posts in that thread and I should have followed through on them with the mods because I said I would. At least one of them was infracted by the mods after you brought it to their attention to the best of my knowledge.


On this bit:

(Again I have no real idea what happened at the weekend, so this is more general and related to my experience of soccer while sports cmod)

Blatter wrote: »

1 - Was it the posters intention to incite a negative reaction/annoy other members of the forum with said abuse?

2 - Did the said abuse actually cause trouble or did it have the potential to?

If the answer is yes to either of those questions, infract the post.

A lot of the time the answer to the first question is "I'm not sure" or "will that hold up in DRP?". Sometimes the answer is "if I let this go, it will mean others point to it in their defence when they're being an eejit which makes my life hard". You need to have a set of rules that you can fall back on especially in a forum like soccer. I'd consider it one of the toughest forums on this site to moderate. The sheer number of posts in that forum on a busy match day is phenomenal. Couple that with the fact that club rivalries (which exist in very few forums) mean that people get wound up very easily, people deliberately wind the opposition up, people rub wins in the faces of the (traumatised) losing side and you have the perfect storm brewing in no time at all.

Also, the rate of post reporting in soccer is rubbish to be honest. Because of this we have quite a bit of inconsistency. Posts that the mods haven't read but would be infraction-worthy fall under the radar because the mods can't be expected to read every post. People who then get infracted are understandably cranky when posts that are worse than theirs have gone unpunished. There is no easy solution to this that I can see and I gave soccer a lot of brain time when I was the sports cat mod.

amiable

So have we any idea why the soccer forum mods just deleted the posts and didn't infract?

Everything Khannie says above is spot on.
Essentially we agreed to disagree on it.
I told Khannie i'd leave it at that even though i didn't agree with it and there was a reason for that.

The mod took the time to delete the posts and there was quite a few of them. Why could the posts not have been infracted as they were deleted.
I'm guessing here but i think it's because it would have taken up quite some time with people appealing and PM's and so on.
And also seeing as it was a different mod who deleted them maybe they felt it would be harsh to infract the others even they openly called someone a wanker.

I think they got a fright just how many posters were calling the manager a wanker because there was quite a few references there to the nickname.

As i said earlier i'm not looking for my infraction to be overturned.
This is not an appeal. I was asked for input and i've given it.

Le King

A lot of the reason people were moaning about previous infringements in the Soccer forum was because it seemed as if there was a poor level of moderation for trolling in the SF. Now, it's quite the opposite whereby absolutely no common sense was used.

If a match thread was closed and a poster posts in his resident club thread then I don't see the problem as long as he is not continuing the problem in the match thread.

Those bans are ridiculous. If this sort of carry on is going to continue there won't be any decent posters left in the soccer forum.

The soccer forum has been slowly rotting for a while now.

keane2097

The moderation of the soccer forum is lolbackwards.

It's by a mile the most drooler and troll infested forum on boards, which makes people think that it needs reams and reams of rules minutely detailing how every permutation of a misstep should be dealt with in agonising detail.

The Soccer Forum has been lucky enough to have had some very good people moderating it for the last while - Iago, Dub13, Frisbee and SlickRic are the ones I know the best and they are all plenty smart, very dedicated and well aware of what pretty much every posters' foibles and agenda are. Iago is gone now afaik, but PHB is a perfect replacement from an is-not-an-idiot point of view.

Yet the over-emphasis on to the letter rulemaking renders the smarts of these sorts of people completely useless.

Frisbee has infracted me a few times, always when it was deserved, and has often let things slide where I've stepped over the line if the circumstances warranted it. That's perfect modding. She's completely capable of it, as are the others I named above.

I'm pretty much baffled that she then went and handed out the bans she did to Flahavaj and others, because they're beyond awful bans and I can't imagine she would have done it without a bland and idiotic blanket rule being added to the charter in the last while.

Basically, there are two phases to to having perfect modding in the soccer forum.

The first is to pick smart people, who spend a lot of time in the forum and can judge characters well. Job done, easy game.

The second part is to avoid a situation where the reasons you picked them in the first place is made irrelevant by inelegantly written, stupid rules.

There should only be one rule in the soccer forum, and that's that if you are being a ****er, expect an infraction or ban. After that you only need the posters to have faith in the mods to do a good job of dealing with the troublemakers, which I think - idiotic situations like this aside - they usually do in spades.